This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Teahouse. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.
Hi, Christopher. To link to another Wikipedia article, place the article name in between double brackets [[ ]]. For example, [[Wikipedia]] creates Wikipedia. To add an external link to another website, simply type the url address. For example, http://www.google.com/ creates http://www.google.com/. TheAnonymouse (talk • contribs) [MerryChristmas!]18:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
The problem is that the page has no "external links" section and I can't find how to add one. Is it possible to do this if it is not part of the original page layout? Christophercowell (talk) 18:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
To add a new section, add ==External links== near the bottom of the page and put * <link goes here>. == creates the section header, and * creates a bullet point. If you need any specific help, please link to the page here. Example:
I am working on my first Wikipedia article and I have been using a lot of "references". Now I am unsure if I should be using "links" instead of references. Is there a right and wrong way to reference the article, or is this a style choice?
Here is a link to my sandbox in case you want to see what I mean: User:Brycearm/sandbox.
Please be aware that this is not a finished page. Thanks for any help or suggestions for improvements.
Hi, Bryce. You are correctly adding references. Your draft is looking good, but may I make one suggestion: you seem to have a lot of references that are affiliated with the subject. Wikipedia prefers references from third-party, independent sources. If you have too many sources from nvisinc.com the article may not be approved.
No, Bryce: that will definitely not help. Wikipedia's guidelines on external links recommend that articles should have very few of these: specifically "External links should not normally be used in the body of an article"; and "Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum". There may certainly be one link to the company's official website, but that should either be in the External links" section or in an Infobox, not in the text. I suspect that the problem you are having is that much of the detail in your article is available only from the company's publications: I'm afraid that the conclusion from that is that much of it does not belong in the article. Sorry. --ColinFine (talk) 23:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Connecting pages belonging to two different languages.
i created an article. Kottanad in English. I also created an article, Kottanad in malayalam. I am unable to link them, so that it will show in the left hand side " Available in other languages". Please help.
Anandtr2006 (talk) 12:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi, and welcome to the Teahouse! At the very bottom of the page, just enter this code:
Hi, this is for Altered Walter.
I wrote an article on the Mumbai Development Plan 2014. It got accepted but later when I checked on Google it was automatically redirected to the page on the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation. I deleted the part I had written upon which I got a message from Walter.
I want to create a new article called Mumbai Development Plan 2014. I am following the method described but i don't see it on Wiki and I don't want it to get attached to the wrong page. Can someone please help?
Mumbaidp24seven (talk) 12:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I feel a bit overwhelmed - I am a first time article
creator trying to find someone to review my article to see if I am on the right path but after visiting the teahouse I release I need help. Can anyone help me out? I am a newbee. ChrisChristopherDBoyle (talk) 11:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi Christopher, and welcome to the Teahouse. Creating your first article can be a bit of an overwhelming experience, but don't worry - if you need help, that's what the rest of us are here for. I assume you're referring to your draft at User:ChristopherDBoyle/sandbox, about Glenn Carraro. It's a good first draft, but I'm afraid that, at present, it wouldn't last long as a live article. Here are some pointers for improvement:
Sources. First and foremost, all Wikipedia articles need to be supported by sources. As a minimum, you need to have at least two references in the article. These must cite third-party sources that talk about Carraro in some detail - a passing mention in a list or an article about something else isn't enough. For the basic requirement, see this page. For help with actually including references, see this, but feel free to ask for more help here if necessary.
Content. The bulk of the article at present focuses on Carraro's career accomplishments - this isn't ideal. A more neutral and appropriate way to structure the content would be to have a section on the man's career which mentioned these accomplishments, rather than listing them in their own section like a catalogue of medals. The article should also be roughly chronological; i.e. information on his education and early life should preceed data on his career.
Sources - again. Much of the information in the article needs to be verified - you need to provide references for claims concerning awards, appointments, records and so on. Anything that could feasibly be challenged needs to have a reference.
Thank you Yunshui. I will incorporate these recommendations. I had wanted to put my references in at the end as I am not sure if Wiki "moves" the reference number if I move the target language but I guess I will soon find out. One more question: would it be recommended to identify a wiki editor who has an interest in sports or is the not relevant? Thank you again, ChrisChristopherDBoyle (talk) 12:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
You can put the references in straightaway; if you use the standard <ref>tag and {{reflist}} combination, the software will automatically number them correctly, and adjust the numbering if you add other references. I wrote an essay here which will explain the basic process for you. If you'd like input from other interested editors, you could ask for help at the basketball Wikiproject; I'm sure someone there will be glad to assist. Yunshui雲水12:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
GA status/ FA status
I'd like to ask, is eligibility for GA/FA status based also on the length of an article, or just the quality of it. Because I have come across some rather short articles (e.g. Ya Kun Kaya Toast) which have attained GA status, whereas some very long ones (e.g. Stan Lee) get just a C-class status. BonkersThe Clown(Nonsensical Babble)10:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
The short answer is no: actual length (purely in terms of word count) is not a factor in determining GA/FA status. Both these statuses are based on comprehensive content, which usually requires fairly substantial prose, but not always (one of my own GAs, Chikaraishi, is less than 1,000 words long). It depends very much on the subject - if there's loads to be said about it, then the article needs to be a fair length to cover all the information, but if it's comparatively obscure, then a shorter article will suffice. The only technical criteria for length is for FA status, and is there to discourage long, rambling articles that fail to focus fully on their subject - it doesn't specify any min/max length, though. Yunshui雲水10:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
WP:MEDRS states that medical information updated should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources such as "general or systematic reviews published in reputable medical journals, academic and professional books written by experts", which I beg to differ. As per my understanding, updation of medical information should not be limited to tertiary sources. Primary or secondary sources should be allowed to use as and when required. For example, what if the information to be updated has no tertiary source? What if there are no systematic reviews available for updating the required information? Tertiary sources are drafted using primary or secondary sources. Without primary source there is no tertiary source. There are many topics in medical field wherein there are no systematic reviews available, and "medicine" is one such field wherein new findings come up everyday that get published as primary source in journals, but not as tertiary source. Wouldn't citing information from primary source mean "actual" updation of information?
Considering Wikipedia as a tertiary source in public domain, medical information updation should be allowed from primary sources. This would make Wikipedia an up to date encyclopedia.
Raghuram.chimata (talk) 05:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi Raghuram, and welcome to the Teahouse. I think you may be confusing third-party and tertiary; they are very different. Third-party means uninvolved; so a source on a drug would be third party if it is not created by an involved party like the drug company. A primary source reports personal observations or original research. A secondary source summarizes what primary sources have said, and a tertiary source summarizes what secondary (or tertiary) sources have said. Secondary and tertiary sources may or may not be third-party, but a primary source is not third party. Am I explaining clearly enough? Wikipedia prefers secondary sources. (BTW, Wikipedia is a tertiary source, but it is not public domain, for all text and most images are copyrighted.) —teb728tc08:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi teb728t, thank you for the information. Yeah, I think I got a bit confused in the terminology. Thanks again.
I am tinkering on the breeder reactor article, and some of the info I want to link is in .pdf's that are not readily linkable. I was reading around in here and found a respnse that links aren't neccesary: You only need to uniquely identify the source.
Cool!!
But, how, exactly? Is the title of the .pdf enough? Title and author? What do I do when there's fifteen authors? (Yes, the main file I want to cite has fifteen authors.)
Hi, 76! You can cite a web-based PDF by using the cite web template, which is available on the edit screen by clicking on cite, then templates. Once the template screen appears, you will see a button to add other fields. As far as the authors go, usually the primary author will be listed first. I might wonder if a PDF that has 15 authors is a primary source? Generally, primary sources are not the best choice for referencing. See WP:PRIMARY. Thanks for coming to the Teahouse. Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Aha! Thank you for the clue-in. :) In this case, I think this does not count as a primary source, it's a research paper on...very technical stuff...put out by the university in Japan that's working on a very large nuclear project. Should be pretty authoritative. :) As for the template, I'll click on it and see where it gets me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.100.248.41 (talk) 18:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
How long does it take for edits to be reflected?
I thought I had made some edits to a page but I do not see them reflected. I did press save Gonmurph (talk) 20:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Can you see if my changes are actually there? I did try to delete paragraphs that are no longer relevant. I worked on the Immigration to Mexico page as it references Mexico's old immigration law and as of 2011 it has a new one. I also updated demographic information Gonmurph (talk) 20:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Immigration_to_Mexico&action=editGonmurph (talk) 20:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you Gonmurph (talk) 20:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Gonmurph, and welcome to the Teahouse! Sometimes edits to large articles may take a while to appear – sometimes you just have to be patient. I checked, and your edit did go through.[1] You can always check by going to the revision history by clicking "View history" at the top of an article. Welcome to Wikipedia, and feel free to ask any other questions here or on my talk page. TheAnonymouse (talk • contribs) [MerryChristmas!]22:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello
Thank you! My initial attempt did not go through but my second one did so I must have made some mistake at first but you are right... patience :) I plan on updating the page a bit more as there are other areas that can benefit from it. I have tried updating the map with a similar one but with 2010 census data but I have been unsuccessful. The updated version already exists in the another wikipage (Spanish version) http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inmigración_en_México
Hi. On the top of the article "Yasser Akkaoui" that I created, it says that the article is an orphan and suggests related links but the links are not related to the article. And I have added several links to other wikipedias throughout the article. Can you please advise on how to remove the "orphan comment" on the top of the page? Thanks
Mayasioufi (talk) 07:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi Mayasioufi, what a lovely name you have! Welcome to the teahouse! No other articles on the English Wikipedia link to Yasser Akkaoui, so the template at the top of that article is correct and should stay. What other English Wikipedia articles do you think might mention this person? Those articles would be places where you could add wikilinks.
Hello Demiurge. Thanks a lot for your answer. Yes you are right, there are no other Wikipedia articles mentioning the name Yasser Akkaoui. Does that mean the mention orphan on the top cant be removed? Other wikipedia articles are not linked in this way and dont have that mention so was wondering what could be done Mayasioufi (talk) 18:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello, that is correct, if no articles link to that one, it must be tagged "orphan", and even if you were to remove the tag it would reappear over time as a 'bot passing through would note the lack of incoming links and apply the tag again.
So far as de-orphaning, it doesn't appear that, links or no, any Wiki article mentions Akkaoui. What you can do then is see if there are places his name can be added to articles. Not in a "forced" or awkward way, but if there are legitimate reasons, such as an article about Swiss businessmen, or articles about companies he worked for where there's a valid reason to mention important things he did while in the company. Does that help? MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes that helps. Ill see what I can do. Also I have another important question. On the top of the article, there is a comment saying "This article or section may have been copied and pasted from http://www.hawkamahconference.org/?page=yasser-akkaoui (Duplication Detector report), possibly in violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy".
But the article was not copied. It just happens that the hawkamah website also has a biography of Yasser Akkaoui so there are obviously lots of words in common between that website but no copy paste. What can I do to remove this comment?
Hi there, I've edited the Barometer on Change page to include inline citations. I can see these appearing on my user page after I have saved the changes. However on the main page that Wikipedia readers see these changes don't show up. I.e if I log out of my wikipedia account and search for the page, the changes don't appear on that page. I'm not sure what I have done wrong - can anyone advise what I need to amend?
Hi Moormktg; welcome to the Teahouse. You were so close - you've created the citation templates perfectly, and with this edit, you almost created an inline citation successfully as well. The only reason it didn't display properly is that you need to put <ref> and </ref> tags on either side of the citation, like this:
<ref>{{cite web |url = http://www.pmi.org.uk/en/communications/news.cfm/moorhouse_research |title = Rising pressure for change |publisher = Project Management Institute |date = 12 May 2012 |accessdate= 21 November 2012 }}</ref>
If you go back to the article and place this and the other references in the text in this way, they will display correctly. Let us know if you need any further help. Yunshui雲水14:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Yunshui. I've used this throughout the text and the references are now displaying correctly. However, there are still now showing up once I'm logged out of Wikipedia. Could this be becasue the changes take time to filter through onto the published page? Or is this another problem? Thanks in advance for your help.
Took me a few minutes to figure this out - I think you're looking at two different pages. One, Barometer on Change is the live article, which you haven't edited for several weeks. The other, User:Moormktg, is a copy of the article that you've created on your userpage. You don't see your userpage version (in which the citations appear) when logged out, because you don't have immediate access to it, although if you run a search while logged out for "User:Moormktg" you'll find it easily enough.
The simplest solution would be for you (and it has to be you, I'm afraid) to copy and paste the whole of your userpage directly into the edit form at Barometer on Change; this will have the effect of editing the page to include your changes without screwing up the attribution history. Alternatively, you can make the edits manually to the Barometer on Change page. Either way, once you've incorporate the edits, I'd suggest blanking your userpage or replacing it with more userpagey content. Yunshui雲水23:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Yunshui! That's solved the problem. However, there is now also a notice saying the page is under consideration for deletion as a user doesn't think the topic deserves an article on it sown - is there anything I can do to stop the article being deleted or will this now be left for Wikipedia users to decide? Thanks for all your help.
Is it sufficient to remove the "stub" tag and copy paste from my sandbox to the article page, or is there something else involved
Is there someone I need to check with for permission to convert from stub to full article or can I just do it
Is it appropriate to ask visiting editors to discuss substantial changes to the full article on the Talk pages, either the article's or mine, before making their change
The existing stub is very short, contains misinformation, citing a single derivative anecdotal source rather than primary references, can I remove that from references and place it under "additional reading"
From prior experience I anticipate a fury of reverts on the new article, often without explanation or reason, what is the best way to handle this
I have made opening remarks of intent to expand on the article's talk page and on my editor's page days ago, no one has commented so far, what does that mean
Hey, and thanks for the great questions! I'll answer these in order of their asking:
Basically you have to improve it past stub class. A start class article usually has more than 1,500 characters (it may be words in fact) of readable prose (paragraphs). Once it meets that criteria, you can remove the stub template with no penalty. Otherwise, someone may add it back if it has less than the requirement.
They should be talking about it on the talkpage of the article if it's substantial anyway, but it probably wouldn't be right to remind them to, as it's an encyclopedia anyone can edit, and you wouldn't own the article.
Primary sources actually aren't what Wikipedia is built on. Wikipedia is built upon reliable secondary sources. Any primary sources would be the ones to go under additional reading if anything.
If they revert once, leave it as they reverted, post on the article talkpage with your changes, and notify them of the talkpage discussion on their talkpage. If they revert more than 3 times in 24 hours, you can report them on the noticeboard for edit warring. Otherwise, just talk on the talkpage.
It just means either nobody has seen it, and anyone that has seen it has no objection to your actions.
Hi, Someone has just moved/re-named the article and talk page for Kangal Dog to Kurdish Dog. As the text, all references and all breed standards refer to the dog as 'Kangal Dog' and there has been no prior discussion or anything about it, I have tried to move everything back; first by 'undo' and when that didn't work by using the 'move' tab. I have also tried purge on my computer and as well as checking on my ipad in case it worked but I wasn't seeing it - still no success.
What am I missing or is it not possible for the action to be easily undone? The editor who moved it, does appear to 'move/re-name' a few pages around every so often? SagaciousPhil - Chat19:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
'Lo Phil! I would expect that you can't move it back because there's a Redirect taking up the old title, so the spot you want to move it back to isn't "vacant" at the moment. If it's a clear no-brainer that "Kangal Dog" is the WP:Common name (as in, a quick glance at GoogleBooks shows huge mention of Kangal and little/none of Kurdish), then I'd say just post a comment to that effect at Talk:Kurdish Dog, then search Kangal Dog, and when it re-directs you to Kurdish Dog there will be a tiny message saying "Redirected from Kangal Dog" just below the title. Follow that link, and you'll arrive at the Redirect page. Open up that page and put the code {{db-move|Kurdish Dog|*put your justification here*}} at the top, filling out a clear justification for how "Kangal" is indisputably the correct name. If, however, both terms are used, I'd suggest posting your objection to the move on the Talk:Kurdish Dog, and requesting the move either after nobody replies, or once other people agree it should be "Kangal". Alternately, you could do the first "db-move" option, and put as your justification "Need to undo undiscussed controversial page move to restore status quo; can move back if "Kurdish Dog" title reached by consensus" or something like that. So one of those three options would be the right way to approach it, depending on how disputable this issue is.
Hi Matthew, I've just tried that - I think I followed your instructions correctly, but maybe not? However, now all that is happening is when anybody searches for 'Kangal Dog' they get to this which doesn't seem quite right (to me anyway). Whoops.......I see it's been sorted while I was 'stroppily' typing this........sorry! SagaciousPhil - Chat20:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi Mattsabe. To upload a picture, you must go to the File Upload Wizard.
If you created the image yourself, you may upload it as free. But if the image was created by someone else, please select the copyright that the author indicated. If the image is not free, then it may be available for fair-use, but the image may only be used in that article. The file upload wizard should be able to guide you with the copyright information.
To add the image in the infobox, type [[File:<filename>]]. Sometimes, infoboxes may automatically put the double brackets for you (it depends on the template).
This process can be complicated, so if you need any help with a specific step, feel free to ask here. Also, if you link to the article and/or image, we may be able to give more detailed help.
Is it true for any article that so long as it meets WP:GNG, it should stay? Say for an instance, article x is about a film slated for a 2015 box office release. Sent to AfD. People argue WP:CRYSTAL, but hey, for this one, it has lots and lots of coverage to establish WP:GNG, thus meeting it. Should it be kept or deleted then? Can we choose to ignore other related notability guidelines once it meets GNG? BonkersThe Clown(Nonsensical Babble)13:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
With apologies to newer Teahouse readers; this response contains WP:ACRONYMS Hey Bonkers. Short answer: yes. In your hypothetical example, WP:CRYSTAL wouldn't apply, because sufficient reliable sources exist that make the event notable, whether it's already happened or not ("expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place") - if the sources are there, arguing delete based on WP:CRYSTAL is a misinterpretation of the policy. There are numerous supplementary notability guidelines, as I'm sure you know, but all of these are based on the GNG - if a topic fulfils the specialist criteria at, say, WP:AUTHOR or WP:CORP, then it is already likely to have received sufficient coverage, even if such coverage hasn't been found. (The one exception I know of is the professor test, which covers academics who rarely get the sort of coverage necessary to attain notability in the general sense.) GNG also overrides these additional guidelines - if a football player fails WP:NFOOTY but has still been the subject of significant coverage, we keep the article. Yunshui雲水13:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Yeah thanks for the answer. It is said that the SNGs do NOT supplant the GNGs... But many a time I see misinterpretations of policies... Now I understand, GNG overrides them all (the SNGs). Cheers. BonkersThe Clown(Nonsensical Babble)13:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Just a rule of thumb, as far as I see it, GNG will always supercede anything other than a SD reason, even policies such as CRYSTAL or (to an extent) FRINGE, etc, as long as it has the sourcing to meet GNG, and isn't a violation of HOAX, etc, such as speedy deletion. If it has a lot of sources, it's notable. The more specific, NFOOTY, CORP, AUTHOR, etc. are only for if it doesn't meet GNG, to give it another way to make it into Wikipedia. Make sense? gwickwiretalkedits23:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Micronational wikipages
Hi I am Nico Fors from Finland, Niclogia, Ladonia and Terra.
And I'dliked to ask a question about Micronational wiki pages.
So If I want to create Wikipedia article about Micronation, or Micronational Organization, what are the requirements?
Where can I find the acceptable references, is it enough My nation has been mentioned inalot of different websites of alot of different Micronations, even in Aerican Empires websites,they opened few weeks ago Foreign relations with us, and are regornizing Niclogia.
So what do youthink are the requirements to micronational page in Wikipedia?
Hi Nico, welcome to the Teahouse. You might find this proposal a useful read - it failed to gain consensus for approval, but will still give you some ideas of the requirements. Fundamentally, micronations need to meet the same guidelines for notability as any Wikipedia topic - people must have written a significant amount of information about the micronation in several reliable and independent sources. The websites of other micronations may well not meet the requirements for a reliable source; it would depend on the individual site, but I'd imagine that most would fail. Books (from established publishers), major magazines, academic papers, reputable news sites or broadsheet newspapers would all be preferable. You may also find some assistance at the Micronations WikiProject, although there is very little activity there these days. Yunshui雲水11:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Can I use school or local publications as references for an article about a high school?
I want my high school students to work on completing the article about our school but have not found a very good example yet of a high school page. I am particularly concerned with students' ability to find published sources with the information they need. For example, if they are writing about the football team, they will inevitably go first to the football coach to find out about the history of team. Can they use old yearbooks, school newspapers, and local newspapers as published references?Jcarney 77 (talk) 21:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
All right, sorry about that. At this page there is a boatload of applicable information that may be of use to you. As for your question on sources, two examples of school district articles I've found are this one and this one. I think you, however are more interested in the article on your high school. Wikipedia needs to be written from a neutral point of view, so potential conflicts of interest are of concern. I'm sorry for the number of links I've posted on this page related to policy...I promise, I only have one more. Our guideline on reliable sources is located here. The Go Phightins! abridged version would essentially be as follows: the best sources are independent of the subject and are reputable (e.g., newspapers, magazines, etc.). I would say that local newspapers are definitely permissible, school newspapers are borderline, so it would be better if you could find something else, but in a pinch, I suppose you could use them, and I would stay away from yearbooks. If you have any further questions at all, do not hesitate to contact me at my talk page or via email (a link is on my talk page). This sounds like a really cool project and I would love to assist you in any way possible. Thanks again, GoPhightins!22:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Local newspapers are indeed the most important (or most usable) source for most High School articles. The question is, where do you find them? If your High School has been around for 10 or 20 or 30 years, that is one or two or three decades of local newspaper articles about that school. There will be plenty of coverage! Now you need to ask yourself, where do you find them? Highbeam or Questia or whatever is the largest of your local libraries will be the answer. They should have the local newspapers either in internet versions or (in the case of the library) on microfiche. So yes, your students will have to put some work in! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Teach! There is one more piece of information you may need. School articles have a guideline on what should and shouldn't be in them. You will find them here. Many, many school articles end up being filled with stuff that is primarily of interest to the school community. They should be written to inform someone who has no connection to the school or the town it is in. Also, when students write about their own school, it tends to sound promotional and be full of flowery language (terms like "celebrated" or "legendary"). Just some things to watch out for! Please come back if we can be of any further help. Gtwfan52 (talk) 10:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
How do I find the right editors at WP to submit a new math article to?
I have almost finished writing an article in my sandbox about my new math (calculus) discovery that involves a new way to find the area under a curve. It is simple and elegant. And it really works! The article includes brand new formulas with a step-by-step how-to discussion and solved sample problems. I need to contact knowledgeable editors with math experience at Wikipedia about how to proceed with my submission.PeterJItalia (talk) 17:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello Peter. Welcome to the teahouse. Your article seems only to be referenced by one unpublished source. Until the maths is published in a peer reviewed scientific journal it remains original research and will not be included in Wikipedia.--Charles (talk) 17:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi Peter, to back that up, here's the official policy on "new discoveries" and the like per the policy What Wikipedia is not:
Primary (original) research, such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining new words, etc. If you have completed primary research on a topic, your results should be published in other venues, such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, open research, or respected online publications. Wikipedia can report about your work after it is published and becomes part of accepted knowledge; however, citations of such reliable sources are needed to demonstrate that material is verifiable, and not merely the editor's opinion.
Hi there, I'm just developing a new article on Rank Weighted Search Results and I was just looking for a bit of guidance as to whether this was getting close to being ready for submission. Thanks.G2003 (talk) 10:30, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
I checked out the article on your user page and noted that it needs significant work with respect to formatting and style before it can be considered a reasonable article. The tone of the article sounds unencyclopedic. There is no lead section which introduces the topic in context. The lead is where you explain/ contextualize the terms and this is not evident in the article under consideration. The page is not divided into sections. The article is also written in a way that most persons unfamiliar with the subject may not be able to fully understand it and so it needs some rewording. There are other issues that need to be considered that I have not mentioned. For additional guidance please see Wikipedia:Writing better articles. Thanks for visiting the Teahouse. EagerToddler39 (talk) 00:33, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
It has just come to my attention that one of my works, Ah Boys to Men, has been sloppilymachine translated in Bahasa Melayu[2] Now, I put in a considerable amount of effort in expanding/writing that page (do take a look). It might not be perfect, but it is a result of my blood, sweat and tears. What's more, the creator (User:Adikhebat [3]) is apparently an administrator on the ms wikipedia. If the page had not been so obviously sloppily translated using... Google Translate... I would not have any issue with that. I know, I do not own the page; it belongs to the Project. However, if it were to be that badly transferred and translated into the other wiki, I suppose the creator should at least give some sort of attribution to the original creator (a.k.a Me) Such horrible translations are worse off than nothing at all. Do they ought to be speedied? Do I have the right to be angry? And is the right place to vent my frustrations? Thank you and Merry Christmas. BonkersThe Clown(Nonsensical Babble)04:40, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Hey Bonkers, what better place than a teahouse to vent your frustrations?
That article on the whatever-language-that-is (Malay?) Wikipedia is a copyright violation, and the person responsible should probably be hauled in front of the Malay equivalent of User:Moonriddengirl by someone who understands Malay.
Expanding slightly, the reason it's a copyright violation is exactly as you say; they have failed to give any sort of attribution to the original author. And "worse than nothing at all" corresponds exactly with the view the English Wikipedia takes on such machine translations. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for doing so, really appreciate it. But if it really is a copyvio, then it should be speedied. I'd doubt the Malay wiki editors respond as quickly and efficiently as here. Your note would most likely be ignored and forgotten. BonkersThe Clown(Nonsensical Babble)05:10, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
I can't get the correct wasy to site something. I was editing my grandfather's page and messed it all up now. I tried to go back and undo it but it would not let me. I also compared the way they were before and can't get it back. Any and all help would be great@!
Hello Karleen and welcome to the Teahouse. First, to undo anything you've messed up, click the "View History" tab at the top of the article you want to undo, then click the date and time of the last edit before you messed it up. What you will be looking at is that version of the page. Then click "edit" while viewing the good version and "save" without doing anything else, and you'll return the article to its former state. Now, to deal with the references, I could explain it, but there's a help page which does a pretty decent job of it, so I'll just refer to Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners. It goes through the procedure fairly easily on how to properly cite your sources at Wikipedia. If you have some more specific questions, feel free to ask after you've read that page and played around a bit. --Jayron3202:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you so MUCH! I just now found where you can edit or create before you make it permament...in the Sandbox area i believe.
I just put this comment in the question below me...UGH!
External links are formatted different than internal links, I'm afraid. In order to generate the text that you're looking for, the link should be formatted like
[http://bcps.org/offices/omp/high/Automotive-Service-Technology.pdf Automotive Service Technology]
Of course you can submit again, simply put the text
{{SUBST:Submit}}
at the top of the page.
However, before you do, I'd recommend fixing your references. References are put in a little funny. In order to properly cite references, you need to put the reference inside the article text, surrounded by <ref> and </ref>. For example:
Schwerno is awesome! <ref>http://example.com</ref> He wrote an article<ref>http://example2.com</ref>
Hi, Kuba and welcome to The Teahouse. The simple answer is you put "<ref>" immediately after the text that the reference refers to, put the information after that, and close with "</ref>. Near the end of the article, you add the section heading "==References==" followed by "{{reflist}}".— Vchimpanzee· talk·contributions·19:19, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Take note of the cite button to the right. Filling in the boxes.(edit conflict)Welcome to the Teahouse, Kuba.greenland! The simplest answer I can give you is to insert <ref> before the reference and </ref> after the reference.
However, Wikipedia uses a special citations system. It can be difficult to understand at first, so fortunately you can get a template for it. If you look at the toolbar that appears just above the text that you edit, you will see that all the way to the right is the word "Cite" in blue. If you click on that you will get a drop-down menu. Do you see where it says "Templates"? There you can choose from citing a web, news, book, or journal source. When you click on one of these, a screen will pop up with various boxes. The source that you select depends on which boxes there are exactly. You fill in as many as you possibly can. The most used ones are available already, but the button that says "Show/hide extra fields" (second from the left) will allow you to insert even more information. When you finish adding information to the citation, you can press "Insert" (the first button on the left) and the reference will be inserted where you wish it to be. When you use the citation helper, you do not need the ref tags that I showed you earlier.
There are other sources to cite than just the four in the templates, though. You can go to Template:Citation Style 1 and click on any of the citation methods that are there. For the sake of this explanation, let's use Template:Cite encyclopedia. You would find where it said "Usage". Under that, you will see both the most commonly used and all of the possible ways to fill it in (called parameters) in both horizontal and vertical format. I prefer using full parameters in horizontal when I have to manually insert a reference. You then insert the information manually. For example, say the name of the encyclopedia was "Encyclopedia Britannica". Then you would write "Encyclopedia Britannica" where it says |encyclopedia=
Hello. I want to add a photo to an article. The photo has a copyright. The owner of the copyright is happy to have the photo used anywhere as long as the copyright and credit line is displayed next to it. I don't know which choice to make regarding the copyright of the image when I am going through the Upload process.Factor-ies (talk) 17:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Factor-ies, and welcome to The Teahouse. Please read WP:COPY and WP:DRC and have the owner of the copyright email permissions-en (at) wikimedia.org. Make sure this person understands the licesing requirements--that the photo can be used anywhere and not just on Wikipedia.— Vchimpanzee· talk·contributions·19:25, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Copyright help
Hi;
This must be a common question but I have not found an answer by searching on my own. I want to add a copy of page full of illustrations from a book published in London in 1813. (The Circle of the Mechanical Arts by Thomas Martin) Is help available to determine if this is free to use? I find international copyright issues overwhelming. Thanks. Jim Derby (talk) 14:13, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Hey, Jimi, welcome back to the Teahouse! That's a great question, and it has a simple answer: yes, it is free to use! Because it's so old, the book falls into the public domain, which means that copyrights don't apply to it at all. The exact criteria for something being too old, in the United States, is January 1, 1923. Anything published before that date is considered by the US to be public domain, and therefore free for us to use. (Since the WMF, the non-profit organization that runs the servers, is headquartered in the US, US laws are the ones we go by.) There's a lot more information at the public domain policy page, but that's the gist of it. So, yes, you're free to upload your image (make sure you choose a public domain license for it) and use it on Wikipedia. Thanks! Writ Keeper⚇♔17:09, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Hiho Writ, thanks for your warm welcome! I uploaded the image and I am getting conflicting information which seems that may just need to add two tags to the image (another learning experience) and everything is good, or I need to be sure there are no third party rights. How do I learn if this book has any third party rights?Jim Derby (talk) 19:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm just starting a new article [4] but I was looking for some early guidance regarding notability of the subject and whether the references available were robust enough?G2003 (talk) 06:08, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello and welcome to the Teahouse! Regarding the sources, those are fine but you must add independent and third party sources (see WP:V, WP:RS). Also, please observe the article's tone. The point of view must be neutral in accordance of WP:NPV. You can also visit WP:BIO for more guidelines regarding notability of living person(s). Hope this helps. Thanks and have a nice day! :) Mediran (t • c) 12:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Uploading a high resolution photo made available for media use
I would like to upload a photo for an article on a musician. This musician's official web site offers high resolution photos for the press to use and publish in its "Media tools" section. What kind of copyright does this file fall under? Are editors allowed to upload these on Wikipedia? Ketsialessard (talk) 23:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Ketsialessard! It really depends on what copyright the author specifies. If it is under a free license (see this for more information), then you may upload it at Commons, the "free media repository" for Wikipedia (and Wikimedia other projects). If not, the image may still be uploaded as fair-use, which is subject to various restrictions. Here are at least two I can think of:
It may only be used in the article about the musician.
It cannot be full resolution.
If you link to the image and/or website, we may be able to give more detailed help.
I am an English-only speaker who has done minor article editing but never created an article.
There is a German article about a family member of mine, I wish to create an English version of the article. A friend who speaks German fluently has done the actual text translation (eg it is better than Google Translate).
I think I know how to create a new Article in the English wiki, but I know very little about how to link it all together with the corresponding German article, or how it then fits into categories, etc.
This is complicated slightly by the fact that when looking at the German article all the wikipedia menus are in German as well.
If I write the new article as a completely new and separate topic, can I get assistance in linking it properly so it follows the wikipedia standards?
Hello Michael. The answer to the easy part of your question: once you create Carl Freybe on English Wikipedia, to connect it to the German version all you need to do is put the code [[de:Carl Freybe]] at the bottom of the page. That will produce the "Read this article in other languages" bar off to the left of the article. To get the German to link to the English, just go to the German article and add the same going the other direction: [[en:Carl Freybe]]. Though generally once you've set up a connection going one way, a 'bot will recognise that link and create the corresponding link on the German page, but you can do it manually if you'd rather not wait.
For Categories, my best piece of advice for adding cats to "Article X" is to go search other articles similar to your subject, and see what cats they use. So if your guy is, say, a 19th century German chemist, dig up some other chemists and see how they're categorised. Try looking at several so you can compare and contrasts. The main thing not to do is add overly-large cats, like Category:Chemistry or Category:Germany (which would get way overcrowded if every chemist in history were directly in that main cat), but rather the most specific cats applicable, like Category:German biochemists and Category:People from Hamburg. Does that help? MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Almost forgot, make sure (for continuity and copyright reasons) to clearly indicate that the English article is a translation of the German one. At the simplest, you can just make that the Edit Summary when you first create the article, but preferably do that but also open up the following template and paste the supplied coding on the Talk page: Template:Translated page. That will help document the development and expansion of the article over time and across languages, and give proper credit to those German editors who got the article up to the current point. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. The English article is now up. Categorization was relatively easy, I just copied the ones from the German article (changing of course to the English versions). Some issues with the genealogical data and one template that seems to only work in the German wikipedia site. If you want, you can review the article and give comments. The language may not be perfect given it is still a translation rather than a re-write.
i made a article named Jalalabad Cantonment Public School & College . when i finished it showed this _
This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.
This article appears to be written like an advertisement. (December 2012)
This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. The specific problem is: adding back maintenance templates this aricle needs alot of work or deleting again. (December 2012)
This article does not cite any references or sources. (December 2012)
Hi, After a debate for deletion, the page I tried to improve, reached the consensus to merge into another article. I don't know how to do it as I am new. Could you help me, please? Thanks Dishv80 (talk) 19:25, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Dishv80! Nobody expects you yourself to merge the information into another article. However, when you merge, you take all of the necessary information that wasn't already on the other article and place it on the article it's being merged to. When all of the information has been added, the previous article that the information came from will be turned into a redirect, meaning that when you search for that article it will take you to the section where the information was merged to. Happy editing! öBrambleberry_ meow _ watch me in action19:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
I checked, and your edit did go through.[1] You can always check by going to the revision history by clicking "View history" at the top of an article. Welcome to Wikipedia, and feel free to ask any other questions here or on my talk page. The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) [Merry Christmas!] 22:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
